That said there is certainly a lot more work that needs to be done in this area. Hopefully these regulations over time bring out practical positive change. Time will tell.

Note that little of this really helps the students that it is supposed to help, because as you wisely point out, raw HTML is almost by definition extremely accessible. I work in a field that uses Latex and the source code of Latex should also be considered more accessible than the compiled pdf. But for university administrators the only important thing is that the accessibility metric that appears (or used to appear, before today!) on Canvas shows 100% accessible.

Incidentally I've always hated Canvas and probably every other LMS provider, but what is particularly amusing about this current outage is that it is occurring at exactly the time when universities are demanding that all professors put all of their materials on Canvas, without exception, due to ADA compliance regulations. It is explicitly forbidden for professors to, e.g., refer to pdfs posted on a personal website.

Other commentators here seem not to understand that many faculty also do not enjoy being forced to use Canvas.

> The chance of people being sympathetic and wanting to help those who suffer is much higher if the homeless people aren't removed from their view.

I disagree with this completely. I think seeing homeless people in the street every day makes people think the government is incompetent and unable to deal with a serious issue. This leads to people adopting more extreme measures like exactly the one we are discussing right now.

In my opinion the way the US deals with homelessness is a disaster because we have a disorganized, disconnected and dysfunctional social net. E.g., how is someone with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia able to treat their condition if they cannot get their medicine because they don't have health insurance? How can they get a home without a job or family support? The list of such issues goes on and on.

Telling people that they just need to have more sympathy and to accept seeing homeless people on the street is a losing strategy and not a solution. In my opinion the solutions include universal healthcare, robust social support systems and drug/alcohol treatment programs. These programs benefit everyone. At the same time it is not crazy to say, "I do not want to see drug addicted people on my doorstep every day."

Perhaps you also agree that these are part of an ideal solution but framing it as sympathy for the homeless is a losing strategy. Everyone would benefit from a social welfare system set up in a sane way, but somehow every discussion in the US turns into an "us-versus-them" mentality. It is like a reality distortion field and a victory of the media-propaganda complex.

Edit: to summarize, homelessness presents two problems, one for the individual experiencing it, and one for society. Solutions need to target both problems. But to deny the reality of one or the other is a critical error.

> Those who are convicted of sleeping outdoors could be given the option to avoid jail time by instead entering into a mandatory treatment program for at least 12 months.

What happens if someone is homeless and not addicted to drugs or alcohol? Why assume everyone who is homeless is also an addict? It seems entirely reasonable that someone homeless AND addicted to drugs/alcohol should be required to enter into a treatment program.

A good idea but not practically possible in any district, unfortunately.

I don't think he ever claimed that these ideas were original?

> He’s also a raving misogynist. I have two daughters. He can fuck right off with that shit.

I feel like this is quite an extraordinary accusation. The tone of your comment reminds me of his interview with Kathy Newman. Everything he said that had even the smallest nuance was twisted into something else. What specifically did he say that makes you thing he is a misogynist?